Official Languages Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If Mr. Beaulieu is interested in this matter, he might like to invite his party leader to appear, since he too made comments about the Franco-Albertan community. He said that only French teachers could live in French in Alberta. He tried to backpedal on this for three or four days, even on Mothers' Day—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I would just like to know—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Right now, we are discussing the motion on the table—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, you have a nice sonorous voice—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but you looked in my direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You might make a fine tenor, but you and I both know that the studies have shown it's the sound in the committee rooms, and not the sound from the Zoom platform, that is harming the interpreters.

Please go ahead with your point of order, in your fine tenor voice, but you should know that I had spotted you already.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

The light on my microphone was on, so whose fault was that? I certainly wouldn't want to blame the technicians; nothing of the sort. We couldn't manage without them.

Mr. Chair, I would just like us to get back to the main topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, but that's what I was about to do.

Allow me to remind you that the amendment was unanimously carried and we have now got to the motion. If there's no debate, we'll move on to the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We'll get used to this.

Mr. Chair, I have a second motion, still in connection with Standing Order 106(4) and the letter duly sent by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois.

The motion has already been sent to the clerk and it reads as follows:

That given the obscene and offensive comments made by the Liberal MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to a witness defending the cause of the French language in Quebec. Be it resolved that the committee report to the House: a) that the Chief Government Whip and member of the Liberal leadership team immediately remove MP Francis Drouin from the Standing Committee on Official Languages and; b) that MP Francis Drouin resign as the Chair of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie.

Mr. Chair, I believe, despite of my feelings of friendship for my colleague, that he is at fault. The matter was spread out over four days in a process of redemption, as I was saying earlier, in which the MP took a variety of stances, such as not apologizing, apologizing in advance, apologizing conditionally and finally apologizing by availing himself of a procedural flaw.

These are not genuine apologies. We find it unacceptable for the Prime Minister, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Transport to have pulled out all the stops to defend their colleague.

In spite of my great respect for the member, we are in politics, and I don't think he still has the credibility required to be a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, or to be the president of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

I' m going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes to consult our clerk. I'll be back shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are now resuming the meeting.

I would ask you all to listen carefully, because there are going to be many procedural details.

Mr. Godin, I am ruling your motion inadmissible for several reasons.

The first is that we just, through a motion, dealt with the matter on the agenda pertaining to the meeting requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). You referenced Standing Order 106(4). A motion had been moved and it has just been carried. So it's settled. We've finished with the meeting requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4).

Secondly, I would remind you that meeting No. 99 is still suspended. A new motion cannot be introduced because such a motion requires prior notice of 48 hours. I trust that you are all still with me. Furthermore, the content of the motion you would like to move is redundant, because it repeats the content of the motion we were debating last Thursday. The debate on this motion had been adjourned at Mr. Généreux's request. As the topic of today's meeting, requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), is closed, meeting number 99 is resuming without a witness. For a motion to be proposed, prior notice of 48 hours is required.

Thirdly, Mr. Godin, when you introduced your motion, you said that it was linked to Standing Order 106(4). I believe I heard you use those words. So your motion is not connected to the grounds stated in the final paragraph of the May 10 letter that invoked Standing Order 106(4), which means that it is inadmissible.

Your motion is inadmissible because it presents three procedural problems.

I'm all ears, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't agree with your procedural analysis.

To begin with, you're saying that the meeting requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) had been closed. How can you determine when it ended?

And where does it say that a motion cannot be introduced during a meeting requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4)?

As for the 48 hours' notice, we are aware of the rules. You are absolutely right on that score, Mr. Chair.

On the other hand, I think that in the May 10 letter, there is a reference to the situation pertaining to the Liberal MP. As to redundancy, one might as well ask whether anyone is being more redundant than anyone else.

As parliamentarians, we have to use the tools and procedural rules available to us. However, if you read the letter carefully, I think you will see a link with the motion I would now like to move at this meeting, convened pursuant to Standing Order 106(4).

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, your political party, and Mr. Beaulieu's party, invoked Standing Order 106(4). You introduced a motion to that effect. The motion was amended, and then carried unanimously.

The question with respect to Standing Order 106(4) has therefore now been settled, according to my interpretation of the procedure. I would also like to point out that if the matter had not been settled and the intent was to introduce a second motion pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), it should be reflected in the letter.

Mr. Godin, I am now going to read the letter that was signed by your colleagues and by Mr. Beaulieu:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), we request that the committee be convened without delay to invite the Minister of Official Languages to appear before the committee as part of the study on federal funding for minority-language post-secondary institutions, to respond to the actions of the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and any other issues related to his duties as Minister of Official Languages.

The purpose of resorting to Standing Order 106(4) in this instance is to invite the Minister of Official Languages, Mr. Randy Boissonnault.

Even if I were to agree to the introduction of a second motion, it would be inadmissible because it doesn't meet the requirements of Standing Order 106(4), including the prior notice of 48 hours and the five-day deadline.

That's my explanation, but I understand why you might not agree with me.

As there are no further questions, the meeting is adjourned.